JUDGMENT

Sujit Barman Roy, CJ.— This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 17th March, 1989 passed by the Sessions Judge, Balasore in S.T. No. 108 of 1988 convicting the appellant Bhagirathi Das under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentencing him thereunder to suffer R.I. for life.

2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 9.5.1988 a written complaint was lodged by P.W. 1-Prasant Pal before the Officer-in-charge of Bhogarai Police Station, Bhogarai stating, inter alia, that the appellant-Bhagirathi Das, who was attached to Laxmipatna Police Outpost as a police constable was residing in a rented house near the house of P.W.1. that day around at 10 O’ Clock in the morning while his son Raj Kumar Pal (since deceased) was going to take bath, the appellant took him to his residence and killed him by assaulting him with iron rod. Thereafter he locked the room and went away somewhere. While searching for his son for sometime, P.W.1 came to learn that the appellant had confined the deceased in his room under lock and key. Learning this, when P.W.1 asked the wife of the appellant, she told the informant that the appellant after locking the door of the room had left the place with the key. P.W.1 then suspected some foul play and forcibly broke open the lock of the room and found that his son lying down inside the room. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, the F.I.R. was registered under Section 302 I.P.C. at the said police station and after usual investigation, police submitted charge-sheet against the appellant only under Section 302 I.P.C.

3. In course of time, the case was committed to the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Balasore. On perusal of the materials on record, the trial Court framed a charge under Section 302 I.P.C. to which the appellant pleaded not guilty. On behalf of the prosecution, in all, 18 witnesses were examined On behalf of the appellant three witnesses including his daughter (D.W.3)-Sanjulata Das were examined. The defence of the appellant in course of trial was that of complete denial of the prosecution case as alleged. At the same time, on behalf of the appellant, evidence was adduced parti-cularly by D.W. 3-Sanjulata Das that in the morning of the day of occurrence, the deceased entered inside her room when the other members of the family of the appellant were away from the house and taking advantage of this situation, the deceased forcibly raped her. It appears that at the time of occurrence, D.W.3 was a minor girl being aged about 14-1/2 years. In this situation somebody suddenly opened the door and kicked the deceased. Seizing this opportunity, D.W. 3 fled away from the room though she could not recognize as to who had entered into the room and kicked the deceased at that time.

It further appears from the medical evidence adduced on behalf of the appellant that at the time of occurrence, D.W. 3 Sanjulata Das was in the family way and her pregnancy was about 16 weeks’ old.

4. We have heard learned Counsel for the appellant and also the learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State of Orissa. Both of them took us through the evidence on record.

5. On perusal of the evidence on record, it appears to us that there is absolutely no direct evidence as to who has assaulted the deceased. The case is entirely based on circumstantial evidence. The circumstances relied upon by the trial Court in the impugned judgment have been proved by P.W. 1 - Prasant Pal, P.W. 5-Kartik Chandra Rout, P.W. 6-Radha Krushna Dutta and P.W.7 - Kartik Chandra Behera. Equally the evidence of P.W. 10-Dr. Chitta Ranjan Das who conducted post-mortem over the dead-body of the deceased is important for this case.

6. On behalf of the appellant, three D.Ws. were examined namely, D.W.1-Dr. Anuj Ram Padhi, D.W. 2 Harendranath Jena and D.W.3-Sanjulata Das, being the daughter of the appellant.

7. P.W.1 - Prasant Pal reiterated his version as given in the F.I.R.. He does not appear to be a witness to the occurrence. The importan